916
EEDERAL REPORTER.
THE AUSTRIA, etc.'" (Distrt'ct (}ourt, 1. INEVITABLB ACCIDENT.
n. Ca&ijdrnza.
January 31, 1882.)
A ship and a schooner were fastened, respectively, to the northerly and southerly sides of the same slip. In consequence of the:violence of 8 gale from the north, the forward fastenings of the ship gave way, and her bow was beginning to swing to the south, when those on board of her hailed the schooner get away, as the ship was drifting. In doing so the schooner foundered. Held, that the ship was not responsible for the injury, as her original fastenings were all that were reasonably necessary undel' .he circumstances, aud she was, otherwise, free from negligence.
In Admiralty. Miltun Andro8, for libellants. W. H. L. Barne8, for claimants. HOFFMAN, D. J. On the eighth of 1vIarcb, 1881, the ship Austria at a pier on the north side of and the scow-schooner Modoc were a slip on Oakland Long Wharf. The Modoc arrived at about 12 or 1 0' clock, and made fast to the wharf astern of the Austria; the latter being further up the wharf towards its head. At about 4 o'clock P. M. the Modoc moved further up the slip, to a position south and abreast of the Austria, with the object of getting under her lee, as t'he weather had become threatening. She put out several lines to the wharf, for· ward and astern of the Austria, and attached one to the latter vessel about amidships. The wind continued, as night came on, to increase in violence, and at about 8 o'clock the Modoc was hailed from the Austria to let go the line attached to that vessel. Before, however, this could be done, the line was cast off by the Austria's crew. The Modoc then hauled off to the south side of the slip, to a position to the south of and not far from abreast of the Austria. A short time afterwards the schooner was hailed from the Austria to get away. as the latter was drifting. She had in fact parted her forward fasts. and ·her bow was swinging-beginning to swing round towards the south before the northerly gale. There seemed to be imminent danger that the schooner would be crushed between the Austria and the wharf. She therefore commenced hauling out between the Austria's stern and the stern of the Transit, a large steamer which was attached to the southerly pier of the slip. In so doing her boat was crushed, but whether by contact with the Austria or by the falling of the schooner's main boom, the toplJing-lift of which had fouled with the rigging of the Transit, is disputed. The Modoc cantin· · !Ie.reported, 1. )'ED.
RJia>. 28i.
THE AUSTRIA.
917
ued to hadl over towards the southerly pier, which she finally reached, but foundered almost immediately on coming in contact with it. The Austria's bows in the mean time had continued to swing around until they were checked by the bowsprit coming in contact with the railroad company's sheds on the southerly pier. As her stern lines still held, this brought her up, "and she remained in the same position during the remainder of the night. It is claimed by the libellants that the accident was the indirect but not remote consequence of the Austria's negligence in breaking adrift. The claimants contend: (1) That the breaking adrift was the result of inevitable accident; and (2) that even if the Austria was guilty of negligence the foundering of the schooner was the direct consequence of her being overladen and unseaworthy j that her deck load had become saturated with water, rendering her crank and top-heavy, and giving her a list to starboard, which constantly increased until she capsized in the heavy sea which was setting in under the piles of the wharf; and that, as there was no actual collision of the vessels, the foundering of the Modoc was too remote a consequence of any negligence of which the Austria might have been guilty, to render her liable.
The circumstances of this case suggest several interesting questions, which, however, in the view I take of it, do not require a definitive solution. In general, it would seem that when a vessel, herself free from fault, has been obliged by the fault of another to change her position or attempt any other maneuver to avoid impending danger, and in doing so sustains an injury, the damage should be deemed to have been caused by the vessel by whose fault she was compelled to incur the risks of making the maneuver. But in this, as in cases of apprehended collisions, she is bound to exercise reasonable judgment and skill, in the absence of which the damage will be apportioned. The Grace Girdler, 7 Wall. 203. But suppose the new position which she is obliged to take is more perilous than her original one, and that before she can move to a safer position a storm arises, the consequences of which she would have escaped in her old position. Is the offending vessel, which originally compelled her to shift her position, liable for the damages done by the storm? Again. A vessel threatened with injury through the fault of another, is, as already remarked, bound to exercise reaso"nable skill and diligence to avoid or mitigate its consequences. Is she not also bound to be well conditioned and appointed, with all the necessary appliances to avoid a collision, even though the danger of its occur-
'918
FEDERAL REPORTER.
may have arisen from the default of another? Suppose, for example, that in attempting to escape from an impending collision a vessel sustains damage by reason of defective steering ap'paratus or rigging, from which she would have escaped had it been sufficiently provided. Or suppose that, being compelled to slip her anchor, she might readily have secured her safety had she been provided with proper lines and hawsers, but owing to the entire absence of these she is stranded. Or suppose that she is overladen and unmanageable, and from that cause unable to execute a maneuver which she might otherwise have safely accomplished. It would seem that in these and similar cases that when a vessel is endangered by the fault of another, and is unable to secure her safety through the want of the usual and proper appliances and means, she is herself as much in fault as if her inability comes from the want of proper skill and diligence on the part of her officers and crew. But if her inability has been the result of a peril of the sea or vis major, the consequences of which she has been unable to remedy, then her defective means should not be imputed to her as a fault. It is unnece3sary to pursue this discussion further. Perhaps what has already been said is superfluous, as it is certainly obiter. In my judgment the accident in this case is not to be attributed to the negligence of the Austria, but to "inevitable aC{lident." Numerous authorities defining the meaning of this term, and illustrating its application, have been cited at the bar. It will be sufficient to quote the language of the supreme court in a single case: "Inevitable accident," says the court," is where a vessel is pursuing a lawfill avocation in a lawful manner, using the proper precautions against danger, and an accident occurs. The highest degree of caution that can be used is not required. It is enough that it is reasonable under the circumstances; such as is usual in similar cases, and has been found by long experience to be sufficient to answer the end in view-the safety of life and property." The Grace Girdler, 7 Wall. 203.
The Austria was made fast to the wharf by It gang of stevedores, under the direction of Capt. Batchelder, a master stevedore of 30 years' standing, assisted by two foremen of great experience. It is unnecessary to enumerate the various chains and hawsers by which she was attached to the wharf. In the judgment of all concerned in the operation they were sufficient to secure her safety
919
under all circumstanees likely or possible to occur. Two witnesses, &nd those of no great experience, suggest that it would have been better to have put out her anchor chain. But this criticism is made after the event, and one of them, when informed what fasts were actually put out, admitted that he thought . them sufficient except in Bome great emergency. Capt. Batchelder declares that even with his experience of the result he would not moor the vessel differently if the work had to be done over again. He expresses the opinion that if he had put out the anchor chain it would either have parted or torn out the pile to which it was attached. If the mooring had been insufficient it would have been easy to establish the fact by the testimony of experts. No stevedore of experience has 'been called to express such an opinion. I think, therefore, that the measures adopted by the Austria were, in the language of the supreme court; "reasonable under the circumstances, such· as is usual in simihtr caS6S, and . haa.. been found by long experience to be sufficient to answer the end in view," It is contended on .the p!!'rt of the libellants 'that the Austria was negligent in not putting out other fasts after the first ones had parted. to The interval that occurred between the time when the fasts part and her bringing up against the shed was from 20 to 25 minutes. No expert has been called to state what the persons on board, three in number, could have done more than they actually did to prevent the vessel from breaking adrift. They were certainly busy paying out chain, etc., and doing what seemed best to them for the. safety of the ship. It is not shown that three men were not the usual and proper crew or watch for a vessel lying in a slip and supposed to be securely fastened to a wharf. But the conclusive answer to the suggestion is that the suggested did not and could not have had anyeffect to avert the disaster. The schooner was warned to move away when the danger of the ship's breaking adrift became apparent. The latter was, in fact, brought up by the sheds on the opposite wharf without touching the schooner, -though possibly she may have crusned the boat ·at her stern. The accident occurred during the attempt of the schooner to get out of the way of the vessel which she was warned was drifting down on her. That attempt she made as soon as she was apprised of her danger. If, then, the men on board the ship had succeeded in preventing her bows from breaking adrift, the result would have been in no respect
920
different. She did bring up against 'the shed without touching the schooner. The latter foundered in the attempt to extricate herself from a position of imminent danger. That attempt she had already entered upon, and the result would have been the same if additional fasts, sufficient to secure the ship, had been put out, and her Jurther drifting thereby arrested, just as it was a very short time afterwards by the coming in contact with the sheds. The negligence, if any, to be imputed to the Austria, is in the original moorings, and of this, for the reasons assigned, 'I do not find her guilty. Libel dismissed.
THE
B. C.
TERRY.
(District Court, 8. D. Georgia. December 14, 1881.) 1. DERELICT-SALVAGE COMPENSATION.
Salvors in derelict cases are entitled to adequate compensation, according to the circumstances of each case. A rule of fixed proportions no longer obtains. 2. SAME.
When the otllcers and crew of a burning vessel leave.it, without any intention of returning to resume possession, or hope of saving it, it is a case of derelict in the sense of the maritime law; or, if not in the exact and technical meaning of the term, a case of derelict, a case of quasi derelict, equally meritorious, though the vessel at the time is in a navigahle river, and the master, mate, and some of the crew return to it one or more times before the tire is subdued.
In Admiralty. Mr. Levy and Mr. Abrams, for libellants and intervenor. Mr. Me1'cer, for respondents. ERSKINE, D. J. On the nineteenth of last April, H. J. Dickerson and others, as owners of the steam-tugs Forest City and Benjamin Bramell, filed a libel in this court, and upon certain alleged grounds therein prayed a decree for salvage against the schooner B. C. Terry and cargo, which cargo consisted of crude sulphur and empty barrels; and on the twenty-seventh of the same month the American Dredging Company lodged an intervention against the same property, and likewise asked for a decree of salvage. The schooner has been sold and the proceeds deposited in the registry. At the opening of the cause it was agreed that the value of the schooner, or rather her proceeds, should be put at $2,500 i the crude sulphur at $5,750; and
THE B. C. TERRY.
921
the empty barrels at $1,544,-aggregating $9,794. It was not ques. tioned by the respondents-claimants of the schooner and cargothat the aid rendered by the steam-tugs was salvage service, but they contested the legal right of the libellants (with whom is included the intervenor) to be awarded the quantum of compensation demanded. The steam-boat Wheeless, partly laden with cotton bales on deck, while lying at a wharf in the city of Savannah, caught fire, and about 15 minutes afterwards left her moorings, and, the wind being south-westerly, drifted in a north-easterly direction, and ultimately came in contact with the schooner B. C. Terry, lying at anchor mid· way the river, with her head up stream, striking her on the windward or port bow, abreast the fore-rigging. The vessels became entangled, and floated with the stream and ebb tide, until brought up near the left bank by the Terry's anchor, which, on the approach of the burn. ing steani.boat. was hove up; but when they collided the chain was paid out, and the anchor again took the bottom, and, I apprehend, dragged awhile. Presently the steam tug.boat Bramell came to the windward, and ahead of the Wheeless,-she and the schooner being then on fire,-and towed her away from along.side the Terry. Just at the time the Wheeless was being towed off, the flames from her and from three bales of cotton, which had fallen from her deck upon that of the Terry, were sweeping the schooner, and had set on fire her sails, rigging, spars, waist, and parts of her upper works, which burned rapidly, and continued to burn until subdued and extinguished by the tug M. T. White, aided by the Bramell and Forest City. The libellants assert a derelict salvage; that during the entire time of the service of the steam·tugs,· respectively, the Terry was abandoned by her crew, without any intention on their part of returning to her, or any hope of saving orrecovering her by their own exertions. If so abandoned, she was derelict, although she was afterwards saved by the crew that left her, they having unexpectedly received assistance. 2 Parsons, Shipp. & Adm. In this case the master and mate and two or three of the crew twice returned on board the schooner before the fire-at least in one instance-was extinguished, but there is no pretence that they saved or assisted to save the vessel. 1. As to the abandonment I shall give the substance of the testimony on this question. The depositions are lengthy, and many portions relate a variety of matter not pertinent to the issues for decision
922
in this cause. It appears from the evidence that the steam-boat Wheeless, about 15 minutes after the flaIl).es were seen from the shooner' B. C. Terry, floated from the wharf in the direction of the schooner; then lying at anchor near the middle of the river, with her bow up stream, and struck her on the port bow abreast the fore-rigging; that as the Wheeless approached her she lowered a boat and got it ready; that about, the time the Wheeless came along-side of the Terry she was burning very fiercely, and set the Terry on fire, but the fire on the steam-boat abated as the burning cotton bales dropped from her, two or three falling upon the deck of the schooner; that the flames from the Wheeless, then lying along-side, were flying across her, so that the officers and Cl'6W could remain no longer on board; that then the master, mates, Kates, and the rest of the crew left in the already-prepared small boat, and subsequently took a position to windward of the fire. Shortly after the steam tug-boat Bramell had hauled away the Wheeless, ,the master, a mate, and one or two of the crew re. turned to the Terry--no steam-tug being then present-for the purpose, not of resuming possession of or dominion over the schooner, but, on the contrary, as the master and first mate state in their testimony, they went on, board to bring away their own clothes and other property. The fire, however, was then so hot that they were forced to leave the vessel "without getting all their things;" and when they next boarded her the steam tug-boat M. T. White was lying on her windward or port side, and throwing a stream of water on her from a steam fire-pump hose. Nor, on this visit, did the master 01' any of the crew resume possession of the vessel or cargo, or indicate any intention to do so, or assume any authority whatever? 'l'he Bee, 1 Ware, 332. Such are the most material facts on this immediate question, as they appear in the evidence, principally as they were stated by the master and mate of the Terry, and the witness Kates; and they being undisputed, and upon these facts, I am of opinion that this is a case of derelict, in the Silllse of the maritime law. For a careful perusal of the entire evidence, more especially on this particular subject, has satisfied my mind that when the officers and crew of the schooner left her, after the burning steamboat had come along-side and set her on fire,th'ey abandoned and deserted her, sine animo revertendi, sine spe recupemndi. The Lama, 14 Wall. 336. If, however, this is not, in the exact and technical meaning of the term, a case of derelict, nevertheless it may well be considered a case of quasi derelict, equally
THE B. C.TERRY.
923
meritorious,and it may not be foreign to remark here that a. vessel may be quite derelict on navigable streams and tide-waters, as well as on sea-coasts or on the ocean. 2. As to the salvage service of the Bramell, White, and Forest City, respectively. Some 20 minuted subsequent to the collision, and while the Wheeless and Terry were still in flames, the Bramell came from the windward and took a position 40 yards ahead of them, and sent a boat to the Wheeless and attached a line to her. This done, she towed her from along-side the Terry, and down the river to the flats, a distance of neal'1y half a mile, keeping herself as well to windward as possible. Not long after leaving her on the flats the Bramell returned to the Terry, and at once began to throw a stream of water on her. There is diversity in the evidence as to the time she returned to the Terry, and as to the then state of the fire. Hudson, master of the White, testifies that "about half an liour from the time she towed off the Wheeless she came back and commenced playing a stream of water on her; the fire was pretty well under control when she came." Darby, senior master on the White, says that "she came back in half an hour or an hour after we had been working, and had got the fire smothered; I considered it out." Hyer, master of the Terry, says: "The White, I think, played half an hour on the Terry; the fire was almost extinguished when the Bramall came up." His mate says that when the second tug (Bramel!) came up "the fire was nearly extinguished." His steward says "the best of the fire was then out," and Kates "thinks the White had been there about 20 minutes when the Bramell came up, and the fire was then pretty well out." When the White saw the Wheeless on fire at the wharf she hitched on to the tug-boat owned also by the American Dredging Company, and towed her to the oil company's dock. There, casting her loose, the White steamed to within 15 feet, on the weather side, of the Terry, which was then burning very rapidly, and played a two inch and three-quarter stream of water from a steam fire-pump hose on her waist. And Hudson testifies that the fire was then so hot that it scorched the paint on the White, and that the fire-pumps used could throw a good body of )Vater 30 feet. Quenching this fire, she came along-side and hooked on to a chain plate, and continued throwing the stream of water against the fire on her deck, hatches,-one being nearly burned through,-spars, and rigging, until the fire was subdued and extin-
.924
guishec1. In these services the Bramell and Forest City rendered some assistance to the White. Immediately after the steam-boat and schooner collided they drifted with the stream and tide towards the left bank of the river, until the Terry's anchor brought them up nearly along-side the steam.tugs Forest City, Commodore Foote, and Constitution, then lying at a wharf hard aground, and none with steam up; and, they being to leeward, the flames from the entangled vessels, or from one of them, set the Forest City and another tug on fire. The evidence as to the aid given by the Forest City to overcome the fire on the Terry discloses that it was not until it was under control and almost ex.tinguished by the White, that the Forest City,-then within 10 feet of of the Terry's starboard bow,-as she endeavored to subdue the fire on herself and the other boats, would throw a little water occasion. ally on the jib-boom of the Terry from her hand-pump, which a witness says cast a larger stream than the steam fire· pump of the White, "And when the fire on the schoonel' Terry was nearly extinguished, and when she had conquered the fire on herself, and on the Foote and Constitution, she threw more water on her than at first," and that the fire on the two tugs was vanquished before the Bramell returned to the schooner. Kates says: "I saw the Forest City playing upon the tugs that were moored at the wharf; I think this was the principal thing she was doiug; I only saw her throw an occasional spurt on the jib.boom of the '1'erry. and I was looking; I do not know how long she was playing before I saw her; I think not above five or ten minutes."
Hudson says that"The fire on the Forest City was put out by their own crew before I went to the Terry, and then they directed their efforts to put out the tire on the COlllmodore Foote and the Constitution."
Thus I have presented 'an outline of the cantt'overs}', and such testimony as is material to a clear understanding of the case. Salvage offers a premium, by way of honorary requital, for intrepidity and timely assistance to save property as well as life, and is not & question of mere remuneration pro opera et labore. The prompt movement of the Bramell in steaming to the burning vessels and towing off the Wheeless is well worthy of commendation; for it is manifest that this effectual action was the pioneer that ena-
925
bled the White to overcome and-aided by the Bramell and Forest City-ultimately to extinguish the fire on the Terry, and rescue her and her cargo, the greater part being crude sulphur in bulk, from imminent destruction. But on viewing all the surrounding circumstances-the position of the Bramell and White, always keeping the weather-gage; the moderate state of the wind, in broad day; on a navigable river, within the ebb and flow of the tide; possessing the propulsive agency of steam, and under easy and ready control-it cannot be claimed that the services of the Bramell and White were attended with hazard to either of them, or peril to their crews. It was, however, urged that the White was in immediate danger because the fire from the Terry scorched the paint on her side. Let this be so; yet it must not be forgotten that the scorching was due to temerity, in coming within 15 feet of the burning schooner, when their steam fire-pump, as Hudson testified, could throw a good body of water 30 feet; and it may also be noted that the witnesses, on the question of danger, expressed the opinion that neither the Bramell nor White was in any peril. At the time the Forest City and the other tug-boats caught fire from one or both of the burning vessels she was under the lee of the schooner Terry, 10 feet from her starboard bow, fast aground, and without steam. She threw water from her hand-pump against the fire on these boats and herself until it was conquered, and at intervals, while thus employed, threw a little water on the jib-boom of the Terry; and after she had suppressed the fire on herself and the two tugs, she threw more water on her than previously. It WitS argued for the respondents that the main purpose of the Bramell and Forest City was to save the ,tugs moored at the wharf, and that if the Wheeless had not been towed away by the Bramell and the fire extinguished on the Terry the tugs would have been destroyed by fire; and that the saving of the Terry was incidental and subordinate to the main purpose, and that this view is supported by the witness Darby, who proves that the master of the Forest City called on him to pull the Commodore Foote (Lynn ?) out, and he refused, because he thought the best way to sa,ve the tugs was to put out the fire on the Terry; and that the court should consider these matters in estimating the qnantlLm of salvage. It seems to me that the evidence of Darby fails to prove that the saving of the Terry and her cargo was incidental and subordinate to the asserted main purpose. But suppose such purpose did prompt
926
the Bramell and Forest City to aid in saving the Terry still I cannot perceive how that could affect the respondents injuriously, or why it should be a cause for diminishing the salvage compensation; and even if that purpose were conclusively' proven, it could not legally be considered in awarding salvage remuneration. The court, in the case presented here, will look only, at the services rendered to the Terry and cargo, and to the towing away of the Wheeless by the Bramell. If they performed salvage service for these tug-boats they have their remedy over, provided they possessed a valid, legal, and subsisting claim. In the case of Le Tigre, 4 Wash. 567, Mr. Justice Washington said: "The owner whose property has been preserved from destruction by acts of a stranger, has no right to inquire into the motives which intluenced his . conduct, provided he acted legally,"
The libellants and intervenor claim half, or at least a third, of the value of the salved property as a reward for their services. In England, the ancient rule alloting a moiety in derelict cases obtained up to the latter part of the reign of Charles II; then the admiralty courts changed the proportion, and so far relaxed the rule as to give a third in cases involving no great danger; and in those attended with extraordinary peril a moiety was still awarded. In the early part of the last century the correctness of a rule of fixed proportions began to be questioned, then discountenanced, and at length abandoned, and a flexible and more salutary rule was declared by the British admiralty tribunals; and, subsequently, (after much diversity of opinion in the federal courts,) the modern English rule was approved and adopted in this country by the supreme court of the United States in the case of Post v. Jones, 19 How. 150. m the case of The Thetis, 3 Hagg. 14, the court said :\ "All claims of specific proportions, and particularly the distinction of derelict, have been discountenanced, and may be said, indeed, never to have existed in modern times. * * * In case3 of extreme hazanl, one-third of the value, or one-fourth, {)r one-sixth, or one-ninth, or a sum of money onlJo" on account of salvage is given."
In Post v. Jones, snpra, the court, by Mr. Justice Gner, said: " Th.) case before us is properly one of derelict. In such cases it has been frequently asserted, as a general rulf', that the compensation should not be more than half, nor lEi'ss than a third, of the property saved. But we agree
THE B. C. T.ERRY.
with Dr. I,usbington (The Florence, 20 E.L. & C. R. 622) that the reward in derelict cases should be governed by the same principles as other salvage cases, namely, danger to property, value, risk of life, skill, labor, and the duration of the service;" and that" no valid reason can be assigned for fixing a rewiu'd for salving derelict property at a moiety, or any given proportion, and the true principle is adequaLe rewarcl, according to the circumstances of the case."
3. As to compensation or rate of reward: "Damper to property:" The court has already ruled that neither the Bramell.nor White was in danger. The Forest City was in some danger; not incurred, however, by reason of her salvage service to the Terry, but by being previ"Value:" The ously set on fire by one or both of the burning schooner and cargo were valued at $9,7g4. No ,evide.nce was given or agreement made as to the value of the Bramell, Forest City, or White. "Risk of life:" Although risk or danger to life is not a necessary element in salvage service, yet "what enhances the pre. ten;Bions ·of salvors most," s/tid Sir William Scott in th3 case of The Btackf01'd, 3 Rob. 355, "is the actual danger which they have inought to be, curred. The value of hnman life is that which is, principally considered in the preservation of other .men's property; and, if it be shown to have been hazarded, it is most highly esti. mated." The reason has been already assigned why the salvage enterprise of the Bramell and White was not accompanied with diffiThe culty, personal exposure, or danger to life or limb. : alacrity, address, and knowledge of the employment displayed by the Bramell and White deserve approbation. "Labor:" It was done in the day-time, the weather mild, the wind light, and, from the facts and surrounding, circumstances, it may be fairly inferred that the physical exertion was neither irksome nor fatiguing. "Dura· tion of the service:" This is not a prominent ingredient in salvage ventures, and much stress ougbt not to be laid upon it, for the actual time consumed in the service-here it did not extend beyond an houris not, except in peculiar and extraordinary instances, a leading element in decreeing salvage compensation; indeed, the rate of salvage is not governed by the mere extent of labor. Further observations on or allusions to the ll!ain questions in this cause are unnecessary. Suffice it to remark that the services rendered by the Bramell and White were (If superior merit, and equal in the result achieved; equ91 be their reward.
928
During the final hearing, counsel for respondents took the ground that there was no proof of ownership by the libellants, H. J. Dickerson and others. It was ruled in 4 Wash. 651, that if the facts alleged in the libel are not denied in the answer, they are not, therefore, to be taken as confessed. But the twenty-seventh admiralty rule provides that the answer shall be full, explicit, and distinct to each separate article or allegation in the libel. I am of opinion that the question of ownership should have been made in limine, by a negative plea, in the nature of a plea in abatement, in analogy to pleading in chancery; or by plea of no title or no property; or by denial in the answer. But if this view is found to be erroneous, the court can correct it by causing the money awarded to these libellants to be plhccd in the registry until the ownership is settled. DECREE.
It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the defendants pay to the li.bellants, H. J. Dickerson and others, the sum of $700 for the salvage services perforn::ed by the steam tug-boat Bramell; and also pay to said libellants the sum of $200 for the salvage senices of the steam tug-boat Forest City; and pay to the intervenor, the American Dredging Company, the sum of $700 for the salvage services of the steam tug-boat Mary T. White, and costs. The clerk, as assessor, will apportion each sum decreed upon the several interests at risk.
END OF CASES IN VOL. 9